Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Jagdish Prasad on 2 December, 1981

(8) Col. Surender Singh vs /13 Union Of India Vs. Jagdish Prasad ... on 28 July, 2014

7/13 Union of India vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta Further, the back side of the bungalow no. 1 and the bungalows no. 45/3 B to 45/6 B, situated on the plot no. 45, acts as the boundary wall separating the plot no.45 from the plot no. 39 and the passage is the part of the plot no. 39. Therefore, it can be held that the plaintiffs are claiming the right to access from the back side of their property i.e. the said property through the passage falling in plot no. 39. Now the question arises as to whether the easement of necessity claimed by the plaintiffs pertaining to the passage is sustainable in law.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 10 February, 2026

The said decision was assailed before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4727/2018 captioned Union of India v. Dr. Jagdish Prasad, wherein this Court, by order dated 30.07.2018, stayed the operation of the Tribunal‟s judgment. It is stated that the said writ petition was ultimately disposed of by this Court on 08.01.2020 without granting any relief to Dr. Jagdish Prasad.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.L.Sharma vs The State Of M.P. And Anr. on 30 June, 2022

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioner relied on judgment reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 773, Union of India Vs. Jagdish Prasad. In said judgment, it was held that promotion of Chief Ticket Inspector was on permanent basis and if that be so the reversion of each of them must be held to be violative to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. It was argued that petitioner has further been promoted and he is working on officiating basis as Deputy Director.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - V Dhagat - Full Document

Baljinder Singh vs The Tribunal Panchayat Samiti And Zila ... on 16 March, 2010

In support, he has referred to Union of India Vs. Jagdish Prasad, 1982 (3) SLR 411. This was a case where facts on record showed that up-grading was not on temporary basis and promotion was not shown on officiating basis and so the promotion was considered on permanent basis. That, strictly speaking, is not the position in the present case. Here the issue involved is that the promotion was not granted by the authority competent to do so or at any rate, it could not be established from the record that the promotion order was made by a competent authority. Stand of the respondents also is that promotion was on temporary post of Head Clerk.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Anthony Steven vs D/O Post on 5 January, 2024

3. Learned Counsel Shri P.Kamalesan representing the applicant argued that the applicant was granted Temporary Status from 29.11.1989 and eligible for Temporary Status Group 'D' from 29.11.1992, after completion of three years in temporary status as per the order of Department of Posts dated 30.11.1992. Though this Tribunal in OA No.1699/2018 (DD: 31.01.2020) held that the respondents erred in withdrawing the MACPs, the respondents implemented the said order in respect of recovery only. The modification of date of appointment as Group 'D' and also the withdrawal of order of MACPs granted, without any notice to the applicant is against the principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel placing reliance on the order of the CAT, Principal 6 OA No.187/2021/CAT/BANGALORE BENCH Bench in OA No.222/2014 (DD: 13.09.2019) and judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Union Of India (UoI) vs Jagdish Prasad reported in (1982) 1 SCC 421, submitted that unilaterally modifying the appointment date and arbitrarily withdrawal of MACPs granted, is violative of Article 311(2) of Constitution of India.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A K Sharma vs M/O Railways on 23 May, 2019

i) In Union of India v. Jagdish Prasad, decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22.04.2013 in W.P.(C) No.4847/2012, certain punishment was imposed by DCM which in turn was enhanced by Senior DCM as Appellate Authority, who had signed on behalf of DRM. The 5 RA No.96/2019 In OA No.2806/2012 petitioner therein was working as Goods Supervisor in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000. The fact of the case was that the petitioner was promoted as Goods Supervisor in this pay scale by the DRM and accordingly the Hon'ble High Court had taken that the Appointing Authority was DRM and the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, who is an authority subordinate to the DRM, was not competent to issue the punishment order of compulsory retirement and the same was quashed by Tribunal with liberty to Railway to start the punishment process from the stage it went wrong. This was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1